IMDb > The Legend of Bloody Mary (2008) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Legend of Bloody Mary
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
The Legend of Bloody Mary More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 13 reviews in total 

20 out of 26 people found the following review useful:

Mary Worth, more like Mary Worthless

2/10
Author: movieman_kev from United States
19 September 2008

Mary Worth (Caitlin Wachs from Thirteen Days and Air Bud 3) is a woman living in the 16th century, after she's accused of carrying Satan's child by her Puritan brethren and her face cut up horribly with shards of mirror, she haunts all the mirrors. In the present day, Ryan is having nightmares about his sister, while his professor/ priest is planning an archaeological dig up the remains of the same aforementioned Puritanical colony. We also get flashbacks to 2001 (when Amy, Ryan's sister went missing).

I found this to be an endlessly talky, horribly acted, boring little horror film that, try as I may, I just couldn't get into. It's also full of idiotic dialog that threatened to make my eyes bleed and brain melt. Furthermore the supposed 'scares' are largely nonexistent. Mary Worth, more like Mary Worthless.

Eye Candy: Irina Costa gets topless

My Grade: D

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

Ultra bad CGI + Bad acting this is a waste of your time

4/10
Author: iruon_itauol from Netherlands
18 September 2008

Seen this movie yesterday and since there where no comments yet on this one i hoped the best of it. It started off OK, but then it came obvious that everything about this movie was wrong. This movie has some of the worst acting i ever seen. Especially the teenage girls, there lines are so flat and fake its horrible. Then you have the music. They put pieces of music on scenes and it just don't seem to fit for one bit. And then of course there is the CGI its laughable. Dead Mary Worth is a joke for itself. She looks fake as hell and then that voice! It's almost comedy. The story is also mega confusing and very badly directed.

The only reason why i gave 4 stars is there where some suspenseful, eerie moments. But that's about it...

DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME!

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

*yawn* Can they ever do it right?

2/10
Author: the_headless_cross from United States
15 October 2008

Bloody Mary always intrigued me. In fact I always thought it would make a good movie someday! Well, guess what? Three movies have been made, but the good movie still has yet to come. Funny, because before putting this in I told myself "Eh, this couldn't be any worse than that other Bloody Mary movie." HA! Fooled myself there! Don't know where to begin with this. Scares and chills are completely nonexistent, pace is very slow between all the stories being told, and between the relationship drama and the sucky music I almost felt I was watching an MTV original show! And that is all I need to say, my friends. Don't need to tell you more except don't waste your time.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Mary Worth Legend Botched Again!

2/10
Author: michaeldouglas1 from United States
8 April 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Like other posters, I've long regarded the Mary Worth legend as worthy of the cinema. But like it's predecessors, this movie can't cut it. Poor acting, poor CGI, incomprehensible screenplay, lousy camera work that tries so hard to be "artsy", but comes off as annoying.

The plot jumps around so often from past to present that it really gets confusing. At least the 1600's scenes are recognizable as such, but the "modern" plot line is very hard to follow -- there's two subplots playing almost simultaneously: the "present day" scenes of the "hero", then scenes of the Mary Worth game that started all the unpleasantness several years earlier. The director volleys us back and forth faster than a tennis game. And the worst of it is that we get no real set-up of these characters; new people keep popping up without any explanation of who they are, and frankly, the actresses in both subplots are so uniformly forgettable that one can't help but get them mixed up!

Then there are a couple strange musical interludes played over montages, which deflate any tension faster than the air going out of a tire. Was this a homage to cheap Seventies message films? We're treated to an excruciatingly dull scene in a café between the hero and the priest where they sit there staring at each other for five minutes, barely saying a word. Oh, and then we get some boring scenes of the priest driving around in his car. ZZZZZZZZZZ

After all this muck, the climax of the film turns out to be very pedestrian, indeed. Mary Worth gets banished fairly easily for a spirit who's been making trouble for 300 years. But is she banished? Apparently not, because the director couldn't resist the usual "shocker" ending we've all come to expect in such schlock. Ho hum.

Guess we moviegoers will have to wait a while longer to get a decent treatment of the Mary Worth legend.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Direct-to-DVD low-budget teenage flick

3/10
Author: DrLex from Belgium
23 April 2009

The title of my review pretty much sums it up, but since I have to write at least 10 lines, here goes. You will not want to watch this movie if you want to see: 1.) fast pacing at any moment in the movie, 2.) fluent dialogue, 3.) smooth editing, 4.) good acting, 5.) suspenseful build-ups, 6.) more or less stable image that doesn't induce seasickness, 7.) good CGI.

I also can't recommend this movie to people susceptible to claustrophobia, because half of the time the camera is pretty much shoved almost into the faces of the actors for no reason whatsoever. It gives the feel that everything was recorded in rooms barely large enough to hold both the actors and the filming crew.

There are some scenes of people walking and driving cars, with no other apparent purpose than to lengthen the duration of the movie, even though the pacing is already sleep-inducing on its own. Some of these scenes are accompanied by music that feels out of place, unless you accept that this movie is geared towards a young teenage audience. These scenes look like a typical karaoke video but without the scrolling lyrics.

The whole thing feels like separate parts which were just concatenated, without any attempt to get the pacing right. I'm not just talking about the different scenes, even within a single scene it's as if they recorded all the actors sequentially, making them say all their lines at once, and then interleaved these video streams. As a result, there are frequent unnatural and awkward pauses between sentences.

And then there's the shaky cam, which is used at all the wrong moments. During a simple conversation between two characters, it's as if the camera man gets progressively more drunk and eventually is unable to track his subject even though it is sitting still in a chair.

Even the sound has a low-budget quality to it. The clearly audible different background noises on the dialogue of actors in the same scene support my theory that each actor acted all their lines sequentially. They could at least have mixed some extra consistent background noise over the entire scene to mask this.

My threshold for a movie that has something still making it worth watching is 5/10. I give this one a 3. There were some scenes that came remotely close to being scary, and the historical parts looked pretty good. But for the rest it felt like the filming project of a bunch of high school kids.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

My Review

1/10
Author: joemamaohio from United States
8 October 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Yet another film on the 'history' of Bloody Mary...this one follows Ryan (Paul Preiss)as he tries to come to terms with what happened to his older sister Amy (Rachel Taylor), who disappeared years ago after playing the Bloody Mary game.

He turns to his friend and priest/archaeologist Father O'Neal (Robert J. Locke) to help figure out his nightmares. As Father O'Neal delves deeper into the Bloody Mary legend, the more he realizes how close the legend is to him.

Another cheaply done horror flick, with camera angles that makes me think the director wanted to be like Paul Greengrass with his incessant close-up shots and moving camera angles. While Greengrass succeeded, this director failed miserably. The story was lame, acting was even worse, and overall it's one of those movies you should avoid.

Was the above review useful to you?

Severely disappointing ghost/slasher

5/10
Author: GL84 from Los Angeles, Ca
25 July 2014

Trying to overcome his constant nightmares, a man and his friends use the root cause of his sister's disappearance playing an urban legend and find the spectral being they summoned is connected to her and try to stop her rampage.

Overall, this one is quite a missed opportunity that really doesn't get much right going. The fact that this one manages to really get invested in the back-story for the urban legend and tries to explain it does get some favors here with this settling on the wrongly-accused witch in colonial times as the subject matter, and the scene depicting this time are where it really starts getting good with the entire sequence played out as a mindless torture sequence really revealing in the gore and brutality inflicted upon her that starts this chain of events that it gets this off on a great note. Not only is this fully warranted for her wanting revenge, but the brutality alone is quite enjoyable, and while it's not in keeping with the spirit of the rest of the movie it still works quite well in delivering the gory goods. Beyond that, there's not a lot to really get invested with since the majority of the screen-time is taken with the duo tracking her down managing to investigate the sightings without really getting anything out of the film beyond those brief moments where the play-out of one of the investigations yields some rather tense images. By staying so focused on the investigation, there's not a lot of chances for the slasher to really be invested in this one and therefore it goes long periods of time without getting her on-screen or even involved with the goings-on in the story, and when it does happen it's usually in the form of long, unneeded showings of what happened to his sister years ago that sets off the whole search nowadays but doing so back-in-time, shuttling back-and-forth in the time-line so much it's hard to get a true handle on where you are it's done so much. This is the series of scenes that are supposed to sort out the thrills and suspense from her actions, but instead nothing all that interesting happens and the lengthy set-pieces for these scenes really undoes it all. Coupled with that lack of screen-time and this is a lot worse off than it really should be.

Rated R: Graphic Violence, Graphic Language and Nudity.

Was the above review useful to you?

Good concept, poor execution

1/10
Author: Eric Curto from USA
28 May 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I just watched this film a few days ago on Netflix, as it is going off there soon. The story presented here is actually pretty good, it has a similarity to Candyman, but Candyman was inspired partly by the Bloody Mary story, so perhaps its only natural. That's the good, the bad is all over the rest of this film. This film feels like it was meant to be a short film and than they got a little extra money and had to fill in the time slot. The acting is on a lower level than Troma acting, even Ed Wood directed better actors. The ADR seems to very off, its not something I usually pay much attention too, not really need to pay attention, but it seems like the boom mic operator must have had trouble keeping it steady, cause the dialogue is very clear at times and than very distant sounding. The weakest part of the film is the camera work, now normally directors film a scene, than after getting it right they film the scene again for coverage, obviously this cost money and perhaps they didn't have the budget, but was the cameraman asleep or did something sexy walk by and make him not pay attention? I mean there are several scenes of exposition where the camera begins to film the shoulders or chest of the speaker, sometimes they only film the eyes or forehead, it is a real mess. No offense to the filmmakers if they happen o read this, as its not easy to make a film(its easier to get a film released, than to actually make a proper film), but I hope if they do see this they will try again at this film, as it has potential if done correctly 1 out of 5

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Am I watching a Soap Oprea or a Movie.

2/10
Author: shellshock91 from United States
12 January 2009

I give this movie a strong 2 out of 10. It's even lucky to even get a 2. Heck, i'll just give them an extra point for trying. The movie has HORRIBLE acting, the frequent pause in every conversation. They "fail" to even act as they are scared and other emotions that are common in all horror thriller movies. The scary scenes are not even worth the jump unless your a 5 year old just coming into the game of horror.

I even think the last attempt of the Mary Warren movie which I think was published on 2005 or earlier was a a lot better. I stopped watching it after 30mins, yes! I said THIRTY MINUTES! This movie is not worth anybody's time, not even to someone with all the free time in the world.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

baaaaddddd!!!!!!!!!

1/10
Author: lordlahkra from Philippines
30 September 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

i have just watched this film and all i can remember is that my watch really did glow in the dark. it felt like my IQ dropped below sea level.

the screen's too shaky, probably the result of too much cost cutting. the cgi's one of the worst i've ever seen. the line's flat and the delivery sounds fake, specially the priest who probably thinks he's lone ranger or indiana jones. and ooh, the script s**ked.....

the acting's the worst, it lacks life. it fails to convince that there's something stalking them. and, well, its fake.

this is a very bad imitation of the movie "the ring"

my advise, stay away from this one, stay well away.

if you can't be persuaded, then at least have a bowl (to catch your IQ) and a huge ice bag (for the headache) ready in any case.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Parents Guide Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history